Failure to complete construction within the agreed timeframe and collecting payments in excess of the actual work performed constitutes a deficiency in service, entitling the consumer to a refund of excess amounts and compensation, though independent loan interests are not recoverable.

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

C.C.No.07/2024

ORDER DATED : 04.03.2026

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Jayakumar D., Ajayavilasam, Elikkattoor P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 696

(by Party in person)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY:

The Managing Director, Manoj G., Kovilakom Builders, Killippalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 036

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service with respect to the construction of the residential building of the complainant.

The opposite party is the Managing Director of Kovilakam Builders which is a company engaged in the construction work.

On 16.06.2022, the complainant and his wife had entered into an agreement with the opposite party to construct a building as per the agreed plan and specifications within a period of 10 months. As per the payment schedule, 20% of the estimated amount has to be paid at the time of agreement and subsequent payments are to be made as incorporated in the payment schedule. The construction work was started on 16.06.2022. On the said date, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) as stipulated in the agreement. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.57,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs only) to the opposite party towards the construction cost of the building on various dates. The complainant had paid over and above the agreed terms stipulated in the agreement by 14.10.2023. As per the provisional estimate, the total cost of construction is Rs.53,95,500/-(Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred only). The complainant trusting the opposite party’s words that he has some financial constraints on account of the non-payment from other projects, extra amount was sought for which was also paid more than that of the amount agreed in the agreement.

The work was delayed at the beginning itself. By the end of July 2022, the opposite party could erect column fittings. The plinth beams were fixed in September 2022 only. The work never progressed as per the plan. The complainant had sent several communications to the opposite party expressing the anguish about the pace of construction. The roof concreting of the first floor was done on 03.01.2023. But the plastering of the roof was not done by the opposite party, as a result of which dampness appeared in the inner side of the roof. The plastering of the roof was done only on 11.10.2023. On account of the assurances made by the opposite party, the complainant had fixed the house warming ceremony on 26.10.2023. But the work was not completed. The opposite party had assured that the work will be finished before 10.11.2023 and the complainant made all arrangements to shift his household items by 12.11.2023. Since the work was not completed, the complainant had to store his belongings in an abandoned condition.

On account of the delay caused by the opposite party, the complainant had incurred a loss of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month towards the interest with regard to the home loan availed by the complainant from the Canara Bank. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the complaint. He would seek compensation to the tune of Rs.45,30,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) towards the mental agony and hardship caused on account of the delay in the construction of the building. He had also sought for realisation of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) as the accrued interest remitted towards the home loan availed. He had also sought for an amount of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) towards the expenditure incurred by for staying in Trivandrum. Further claim of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was raised as the loss of rent with regard to